WCS Discussion

[Dave.L]

Roger,

 

Ron took the time to make a step by step screen shot to illustrate this bug and Colin confirmed thru his test as well.

 

Yet you still argue that this would be an enhancement

 

Respectfully, if it's not an issue for you, you need not worry about it.

[3R!< W3NG3R]

quote:

---

PS, notice in your example the new view 1 has the wrong work offset. So at a bare min. you will need to change the old view to -1 and change the new view to what you need.

---

Dave, this could/should have been set in this dialogue box:

 

[Roger Peterson]

Again, I don't doubt you have a bug. All bugs should be reported and fixed.

 

The process I use always works. I've never had an issue, period.

 

I'm really not trying to argue, and I'm not saying the process of rotating a view is incorrect. I'm just saying if you want to edit an existing view the tools and processes are already there. They always work. it's as simple as using xform dynamic to edit an existing WCS/tplane/cplane.

[crazy^millman]

quote:

---

it's as simple as using xform dynamic to edit an existing WCS/tplane/cplane.

---

Without geometry you will get "NEW VIEW #1" as a dealer I would think you would want the simplest method possible to help you showcase the power of Mastercam not telling your customers look you have to do these extra steps to rotate a WCS by creating geometry.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

Dave, this could/should have been set in this dialogue box:

---

Eric, yes, but remember we want to replace a view so if you enter the value here it won't take coz another view would still have that value.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

Without geometry you will get "NEW VIEW #1" as a dealer I would think you would want the simplest method possible to help you showcase the power of Mastercam not telling your customers look you have to do these extra steps to rotate a WCS by creating geometry.

---

Ron, thank you, thank you!

[crazy^millman]

Eric doing that still makes no difference. You still get the "NEW VIEW #1".

[crazy^millman]

Dave I still think you are making work than needs to be, but it does not work like it should and it did for years with that it needs to be addressed.

[gcode]

To me this is an awful lot of controversy over

drawing 2 lines..

As someone who first started using Mastercam in

V5, I remember when there was no WSC and I remember when you had to have a death wish to use

Edit Common parameters.

Of course there is room for improvement, but the current system is pretty darn good concidering where we came from

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

Dave I still think you are making work than needs to be

---

Ron, you just provided a detail explaination to prove my point and now you say this?

 

How so, I don't understand?

 

PS, I also forgot to mention that if the original view is tied to your stock definition, you also need to go and change that.

[Roger Peterson]

I'm going to train people the easier, most consistant, most reliable, easily editable, and most functional way of creating editable views. If this requires a couple of extra clicks, so be it. If your process is to use the "two line" or "gnomon" method, it is simply that, the process. Then the views are easy editable by using xform dynamic to move the geometry that was used to create the view.

 

Again, rotate view is broken and does not work the way it used to.

 

Dave, the enhancement request I was referring to was in regard to a "solidworksesque" dialog for creating/manipulating views as was brought up earlier in the thread. This is something I have advocated in the past and would be a big help for people new to manipulating views.

[3R!< W3NG3R]

quote:

---

Eric doing that still makes no difference. You still get the "NEW VIEW #1".

---

I know, I was just addressing the work offset issue.

 

For the record, I agree with Dave. This should work the way he says, and I do the same work around as he does. Annoying.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

To me this is an awful lot of controversy over

drawing 2 lines..

As someone who first started using Mastercam in

V5, I remember when there was no WSC and I remember

when you had to have a death wish to use

Edit Common parameters.

Of course there is room for improvement, but the currennt

system is pretty darn good concidering where we came from

---

Without this conversation, we would not have known it was a bug. Every user has bugs that are more important or less important to how they use the system so I don't think it's too much converstation.

[crazy^millman]

Roger the customers I deal with do not want extra geometry. If it worked a certain way then they expect to work the same way it did not do tricks to make it work like it use to. The 2 lines is something I have never used since using Mastercam.

 

Dave what I refer to is just using the "NEW VIEW #1" and dealing with is all. I will deal with it when it comes up until it is fixed. It should update any operations tied to that WCS why you are not seeing it I am not sure.

 

Eric all good here.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

Dave what I refer to is just using the "NEW VIEW #1" and dealing with is all

---

From an organization point of view, I want to maintain the names of my Operations and that's why I can the views OP1, OP2, and so on.

 

I think you are correct that the operations will get updated with “new view #1”. Mine did not because I did not try to save over the view since I knew it did not work since I had tried that before. As I said, I can use the “new view #1” but I will still need to change the work offset, rename the view and if the stock definition is based on my original view, I will need to update that as well.

 

Until it’s fixed, I guess I need to live with it.

[Leigh @ Kodiak]

Dave, I know it's less than ideal for you, but if you start using the 2-line method, I'm sure you will find it to be less hassle than the method you are currently using.

[Dave.L]

Leigh, thanks but I refuse to create un needed geometry. I do apprecate the suggestion though.

[Leigh @ Kodiak]

It's not un-needed if you are using it to create associative WCS's

 

Just put em on the same layer every time, it's no biggie. Do me a favor. Try the 2-line method for a week or two, then tell me you don't want the un-needed geometry.

[Dave.L]

Leigh, I am sure it works for you and others

[Leigh @ Kodiak]

It may work for you too, Dave, but there is no way to know without trying it!

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

It may work for you too, Dave, but there is no way to know without trying it!

---

Leigh,

 

I have no doubt at all that this method works but I am NOT going to use it.

 

Part of the reason is that I only have the issue I decribe if I need to rotate an existing WCS and I don't need to do this all the time so I am not going to start using a work-around for something that's not always needed.

 

I do thank you and others though

[Roger Peterson]

I think the real misconception here is that the "two line" method is a workaround, which is simply not true.

 

Having a view associative to geometry allows you to edit that view, there is no other reason to have a view associative to geometry. This is the way I have done it since V9 came out with the WCS view manager.

[gcode]

quote:

---

I think the real misconception here is that the "two line" method is a workaround, which is simply not true.

---

It is a powerful tool also.

We do large weldments here that are pretty much proven files.

Rather than spend hours or days trying to get the weldment perfectly aligned on the machine tool,

we'll slap it up there and take a couple of trial cuts.

Then we figure out the neccessary shift amounts

and move/rotate/translate the 2 WSC definition lines, post and go..

[mayday]

quote:

---

Then we figure out the neccessary shift amounts

and move/rotate/translate the 2 WSC definition lines, post and go

---

why not use a G68 rotate command, then on repeat's jobs, or multiple parts you dont have to re-post

[gcode]

quote:

---

why not use a G68 rotate command,

---

its a 5 axis shift.. on a 3 axis machine